OK, here’s the thing with this. People have totally fucked up with these Beatles attributions to Myers-Briggs types.
I see Lennon listed as an INFP a lot and that is just so far off. You know what a mean and dirty bastard Lennon was? Lennon is not an INFP because INFPs are nice people, some of the nicest around. Lennon was not nice. If you can’t see that, you need to readjust your perceptual faculties.
Lennon was the Beatles more or less. He was the vision and the cutting-edge of the band. The Beatles wouldn’t have been the Beatles without McCartney, but between the two, Lennon is decisively The Beatles. Paul may have wrote the brunt of The Beatles Sgt. Pepper’s album but he wouldn’t have done it without John as a muse. Lennon was the muse of the Beatles. In the final analysis, it was really all about him.
Importance of interplay between John and Paul:
OK, let’s skip all the bullshit. It was Paul and John that were at the heart of the Beatles. If you want to find answers and know things then you have to be able to bottom-line things. This is the fundamental bottom-line. And this interplay is actually interesting from a personality perspective once we know the true types of these two guys because it wasn’t an easy relationship they had. But, it is this relationship that made the Beatles so varied and interesting.
In Socionics, the Russian equivalent of Myers-Briggs, they had what you would call a Relationship of Superego. This type of relationship is like having someone always sitting on your shoulder to correct you, to prevent your natural tendencies from going too far into excess (or from going anywhere preferably. These type’s natural modes grate on each other something awful).
Superego relations are normally incredibly straining and taxing. John and Paul didn’t get along but for some reason there was a magic when they wrote music together. Where Lennon was dour, bleak, cynical, biting, and dry, McCartney was optimistic, lush, soothing, and wet. It was this primary interplay that made The Beatles so interesting. These two probably learned a lot from each other but it wasn’t easy as is well-documented. Remember that song Paul wrote where he said the movement you need is on your shoulder? Well, that’s superego relations for you. Without Lennon, Paul could have easily drifted into schmaltz, and without McCartney, Lennon could have ridden too long on a monotonic and skeletal groove. McCartney gave color to what could have been a grey rainbow if left to Lennon. But, what Lennon had was the psychology. Lennon had the relevance, the sincerity, the grit, and the depth.
Lennon’s psychic pain and his mental questioning are what The Beatles spirit revolved around. And Lennon’s pain was a mirror for the pain of his generation. It was he who took the Beatles into uncharted territory, at least indirectly, by his presence in the pairing. In short, he was the prime mover of the band and of the coupling. McCartney’s most important role was in fleshing out and adding pleasantness and exuberance to this pain.
It was John’s themes that were the heavy stuff. His wordplay. His soaking up what was in the air of his times and focusing it through his fractured psyche. John Lennon was fucked up. Paul was not. Fucked up people always make the most moving art.
Paul was a relatively well-adjusted and ambitious guy.
Paul was the primary melodic talent of the band. He gave the Beatles that incredible melodic diversity. If you listen to Lennon’s solo stuff you will see that he was more of a blues guy at heart. He was also an avant-gardist. But, Paul was a big band guy, a popular music guy. He liked to entertain and basically give people a good time.
John was his foil in this respect. He didn’t want to give people a good time. Contrarily, he liked to challenge people. John was always searching for himself, introspective, experimenting with many different modes of living. He was a searcher.
Paul was a traditionalist. He constantly references and extols the virtues of yesteryear, not in a moralistic way, but in a wistful and happy way. He even has a song called Yesterday. The Lennon corollary to this is his song Help! Paul was at home on earth, Lennon was not. I have seen Paul listed as an intuitive type of person but there are simply no grounds for that (ha-ha, get it).
The Beatles as a totality were an intuitive type. Definitely. Wouldn’t have been so groundbreaking otherwise.
Paul pretty much kept the band together. Lennon could have easily flown out of the band many times. Paul was glue. Paul was an introverted sensation dominant type. Got that? Not an intuitive type. The reason many people probably think he was an intuitive type is because he seemed so imaginative and thoughtful. Well, that my friends is a little something called auxiliary extraverted feeling. Nothing more imaginative than that. But, Paul was pulling from an introverted sensation base.
The best way to illustrate the difference between these two guys is Strawberry Fields vs. Penny Lane which were released as singles on two sides of the same record. These two songs were released at the height of the Beatles (1967 was the peak of all 60s music and The Beatles were at the top of that, the “toppermost of the poppermost” as the four lads used to like to say).
These two songs illustrate beautifully the differences between the twin heart of The Beatles. Lennon wrote Strawberry Fields and Paul wrote Penny Lane.
Strawberry Fields is a song about the experience of darkness and despair. In addition to the lyrics (which are great) this is also evident from the melancholic feel of the music. It doesn’t sound happy. It sounds ambivalent, confused, searching, alighting on one place to only seconds later find it uninhabitable.
It’s the tone of a depressed existentialist who can’t make up their mind about their position in life, who they are, what they’re supposed to be doing or going towards. Well, to give you a clue folks, there is only one thing that can be responsible for that type of vibe, and it is called introverted intuition. Existential, alienated, unsure, not at home here, those type of things. Wistful and sad remembrance. Identity conflicts. Who am I?
Some other songs that Lennon wrote that confirm this vibe: Nowhere Man, I’m a Loser, A Day in The Life (arguably, the defining Beatles song from an identity point-of-view)
So, if Lennon is a dominant introverted intuitive type (which he most certainly motherfucking is because if he ain’t then who the fuck is?) couldn’t he then be an INFJ too as they are the other type that has introverted intuition as dominant.
Well, that at least is a more reasonable assertion than him being an INFP. There is no way an INFP would question the basic grounds of reality to the extent that Lennon did. Ni is the only thing that does this. INFPs are not existentialists. Ever. Write it down if you have to.
No, he isn’t an INFJ because there is simply no evidence of Lennon displaying any auxiliary Fe behaviors in the lack of the presence of Paul (which was always there in the Beatles). Watch Lennon in an interview sometime. He is biting, caustic, witty, acerbic, and basically an unfriendly prick. He is the revolutionary member of the Beatles, the poker of the comfort of the status quo. He could be an outright prick when he wasn’t restrained by his Beatles member role (a role which he often hated). No, Paul was the one responsible for giving The Beatles that mellifluous public image, friendliness, cuteness, and tactfulness. That is because Paul had an extraverted feeling auxiliary.
So, together they equaled an INFJ, because INTJ + ISFJ = INFJ. Yes, it does.
In the case of adding personality types, order of operations is important, whereas, it usually isn’t in normal addition. So, you have to determine which type comes first, and as I have already said it is Lennon. Paul comes second, which in no way diminishes his incredible importance to the Beatles sound, but The Beatles are primarily interesting because of Lennon’s psyche. It is here that the transcendent magic of the Beatles resides.
Plus it doesn’t work the other way around: ISFJ + INTJ = ISTJ. Yeah, the Beatles heart was ISTJ. If that makes sense to you, then you have perceptual problems beyond the scope of this article. You can read what I have to say about ISTJs and their poetic predilections here.
Ok, fuck it, Lennon was an INTJ. If you don’t believe me then you need to learn some more stuff about Myers-Briggs. Shit, Myers-Briggs needs to learn some more stuff about Myers-Briggs. There is so much misinformation on the internet, it is unbelievable.
*Since this article has been released (almost four years ago), and in the spirit of Strawberry Fields, I have changed my mind. I now think Lennon is an INFJ. If, for some reason, you disagree with my new assessment, feel free to make reference to the penultimate line of this article to see where I stand on this issue*
Now Penny Lane:
Well, look at this here little charmer, written by none other than Paul McCartney.
OK, did you listen to it? You see what a different vibe we are getting from this song. Notice the charming little descriptions of events from the life of Paul’s childhood. Feel the effusiveness of the music. Hear the happiness and the joy. Notice the wonderful craft of the lines. It is friendly and welcoming. You know, all that shit. In other words, it’s a world of difference between being taken down and nothing being real. It relishes the reality of that time. And it shows a solid sense of reality and taking pleasure in it.
Ready for the math: solid sense of reality + taking pleasure in it = ISFJ.
Yes, it could equal ESFJ, or even, ESFP or ESTP, however, it really doesn’t in Paul’s case. ESFJs are pleasure-loving pigs with little sense of continence or reserve and ESFP and ESTP have much more aggressive vibes than Paul did. Paul was essentially a content and reserved guy. No existential problems. Plugging away at his craft. A genius melodist. Business savvy. Somewhat sentimental but not a deep-feeling guy. Or at least he didn’t show this in his songs. He opted and erred on the side of “La-La! It’s a celebration!” The light and floaty feelings of teenage love.
Much of the genius of the Beatles sound and its wonderful lightness and giddiness was Paul’s doing, more or less. That unconcern with getting to the bottom of things, a simple celebration and exuberance about the nature of things. The sense of all the possibilities of mundane life (listen to the refrain in the song A Day in The Life that demonstrates so quintessentially the striking contrast between Paul and John).
As for the other two Beatles, George and Ringo, I love ‘em, but they are minor players in the saga of the Beatles. The Beatles, by a far margin, were John and Paul, the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team.
That being said, I would type George Harrison as an ISFP because of his quiet, bucolic, and god-loving vibe. He is not an INFP because INFPs are inevitably quirkier and less serious than he was. Harrison was like a quiet, hippy saint, a searcher like Lennon, but a more minor and muted one.
Ringo, the goofball and comic relief of the band, and in many ways, a sort of muse of the band, though in an absolutely opposite way than John was, was an ESFJ ESFP. Humble, unambitious, content, going along for the ride.
Neither Harrison nor Ringo had close to the amount of ambition or ego that Lennon and McCartney had. Ringo basically had no ambition and George had a quiet ambition that was clear on where he stood in relation to the top two. He etched out a nice spot for himself in The Beatles and was no doubt influenced by the immense talents of Lennon and Mccartney, but he was in no way a major player. That being said, some of the most beautiful and tender aching moments of The Beatles are attributable to Harrison. He also adds that moral quality of dominant introverted feeling which can be seen in his crowning moment in The Beatles with the epic While My Guitar Gently Weeps.
This song in a nutshell: I don’t know how you got so fucked up that you would be such a heartless and irresponsible person. O, how I weep for you. Or rather my guitar does.
Ringo can be summed up in his only contribution to The Beatles with his song, Octopus Garden. Sums up an ESFJ ESFP steeped in a Beatles context rather well.
Summation of this song: I don’t care about any of the heavy shit. I just want to be under the sea in a groovy and cozy place with my honey bunny. Very charming and childish song. Similar to ISFJ but without the savviness, craft and intelligence (ISFJ has the tertiary introverted thinking after all). It is more clumsy and doglike. That is ESFJ for you.
And so there you have it folks. That is my estimation of The Beatles Myers-Briggs types.
If you disagree with any of the foregoing, you can feel free to kiss my black ass.
Just kidding, I’m not black.
[catlist id=25]
I expected you to name Lennon as INFJ. But something inside of me told that he seems too cold and distant. Maybe like Bob Dylan not using his Fe? But… here we are! Great article as usual. Thanks again)) Now I suspect that my mom is ISFJ.
Thanks. Glad you’re digging it.
INFPs are not existentialists ever? so why are Augustine, Kierkegaard, Kafka, Camus, van Gogh, Andersen, Shakespeare, Poe, Milton, Blake, Saint-Exupery, Milne, Virginia Woolf, C S Lewis, Rousseau – I mean, why is the entire (pre)existentialist canon typed as INFP?? :))
which kind of makes sense to me: if you have Fi as your primary function, expressed through Ne and then Si as tertiary: isn’t that the Molotov cocktail mix for existentialism (understood here more broadly, as philosophy that questions the grounds of human existence)
Lennon as INTJ sounds about right to me,though
Sounds right to me too, which is probaly why I stated that he was an INTJ. I give some reasons to back up my pompous and somewhat controversial assertions. Yes, an INFJ could have written Strawberry Fields but could they have written Love is All You Need? Doubtful. INFJs never say love is all you need. Or that love is THE ANSWER. No, an INFJ is more likely to say love is THE QUESTION.
And Lennon as an INFP? Give me a break and get a clue about what INFPs are like. For one thing, they are pretty nice. Lennon was an asshole. Which doesn’t diminish his awe-inspiring creative abilities, but, no INFP is going to be capable of the kind of epic assholery that Lennon was capable of.
And I know there is this whole peace and love mythology surrounding Lennon but much of that was manufactured and calculated by The Beatles handlers and publicists. Lennon was a pretty angry and unpleasant guy by nature. But, he was honest as well. And he did come around to peace and love and all that near the end of his life. It was like him finding the answer in his tertiary Fi. But, only after he went through a lot of searching, struggling, and dealing with the violence and hatred in his nature.
oh yeah, he was a monumental asshole 🙂
I agree with your conclusion here, but I’d be a bit weary with the presuppositions. everyone (ok, a lot of people) could have written “love is all you need” (geez I’ve just written it right now): what you write in songs is as much a matter of cultural conventions / fashion as it is a matter of personal inclinations or beliefs (even in poetry).
but nevermind, you know all of that already
No, the molotov cocktail mix for existentialism is being an Ni dominant type with all the implications of extraverted sensation as an inferior function. Fi and Si emphatically have nothing to do with existentialism. At all. Which is why I wrote that bit about INFPs.
And yes, most of those people that you listed, if not all, are Ni dominant types. So, whoever is listing them as INFPs is wrong. Most of them are INFJs on that list. It is a big misunderstanding in the whole Myers-Briggs community, this confusion between INFJ and INFP.
Kafka is an INTJ. But, Kierkegaard, Camus, Rousseau, Blake, and Poe are INFJs in my book. Shakespeare, Milton, and Virginia Woolf are probaly INFJs, but I don’t have as much certainty about them. CS Lewis I don’t know. I’d have to think about that. The others I’m not as familiar with.
But an existentialist, pretty much by definition indicates an Ni dominant type, especially as a reaction to their inferior extraverted sensation. This is the primal dilemma to an Ni dominant type, the very grounds of existence. How to be? Whether to be? How is it possible to be? What does that mean? Who am I? What am I here to do?
An INFP will not be doing none of that. An INFP’s primary dilemma is more in the sphere of morality, love, and relationship.
I see your point. it seems to me (what an insight :P) that you’re working closely with archetypical models, which is cool … however, I took an interest in mbti because it primarily doesn’t deal with personality / archetypes, but rather with cognitive functions. that is, the brain processes information in a certain way (ok, the mbti “functions” are actually working on the phenomenological level, ie. how do these neurological mechanisms appear to the consciousness and to external perceivers), and the way our brain works creates a certain way of approaching reality which solidifies into certain patterns of behavior & thinking that we call “personality”,
if we think from this perspective, I’m inclined to say that existential sensibilities can emerge from different configurations of functions. I mean, most people can experience a strong existential questioning … neurologically speaking, it’s simply because we experience consciousness as the center of our ego, although it’s just some kind of windows control panel of the brain – it seems as everything works from there, but in reality it’s just where we access the features that need to be visible to us, with the real stuff working independently from there, in ways that 1) we don’t know and 2) are actually conflicting
i’d say that if you have any configuration of functions inclined to grasp these paradoxes, you can become an ‘existentialist’ (undoubtedly also following certain cultural formats of expression, which abound in the West, thanks to the soul-searching tradition started by the stoics, transformed by Augustine and then finally individualized by Petrarch – to make an extremely rough account of the ‘discovery of the self’ in the West)
there can certainly be an Fi-type of existential anxiety: I’ve seen it very closely from ENFPs (who often look like these cheerful, smart, talkative, kind etc. people in public, but when you really get to know them, you see there’s a lot of deep emotions going on, and these can have undertones of existential questioning).
but ok, yes, this is something different from the excruciating, Kafkaesque -type of existentialism. but why, though, could Fi+Ne not produce such kind of questioning?
I’m not surprised that you type Kafka as an INTJ, though. as weird as it sounds at first sight, it makes sense. they’re the prototypical psychoanalytic patient: overly self-analysing and yet completely unable to see the obvious sources of their fixations / obsessions 🙂 actually, they’re the caricature of psychoanalytic patients (now I really hope you’re not an INTJ yourself :))
I read your piece on Introverted vs Extroverted feeling, and I got it. I need to start from what I know in person, so I understand Fi basically as internalized Fe, which works in a similar dichotomy (did I just write ‘dichotomy’? sorry :)) as Ti vs Te. whereas Te & Fe are instrumental, get-shit-done functions, Fi is introverted in an analogous way as Ti would be the introverted version of Te, yes?
so, Fi basically deals with relational emotions (just as Ti deals with relational rationality, logic, connections, systems), just that it processes them internally? if it’s so, then yes, this would have little to do with self-questioning. I think I get it.
but then, why do you say that Ni is existential per excellence? I mean, I can see Ni at work: I don’t to seem nasty, but for me Ni is this inner greatness of conspiracy theorists 🙂 the way that everything makes sense for them, and they seem to have an inbuilt-system that connects the dots by eliminating inconsistencies … is that why they seem to have so little patience with paradoxes and a relatively poor sense of humor? for a good sense of humor you have to see how things *don’t* fit together, and how funny and liberating that actually is, right? 🙂
ok, I think I get that. what I don’t really understand is when this strong Ni becomes existential … maybe is like dominant Ne, but wherever we see fun and amusing inconsistencies, Ni sees angst … oh geez, if this is the case, poor Ni :/ … is it because for dominant Ne, systems are always approximations, ad hoc schemata that don’t bear an intimate relation to the subject, who experiences them as something external, as the always changing material of reality that is to be gazed at with wonder and amusement, while for Ni this is more personal. but how is it really experienced? can you write more about that?
yeah, I definitely see Ni as a cognitive function processing reality: Ni is what I, as a historian of ideas, like digging – this inner, hidden consistency that holds systems of thought & belief together … Ni is the most common (and by far the most interesting) subject of my inquiry … Ni is what makes poetry great or a thinker fascinating … the perfect subject for analysis 🙂
but still, what I’d really like to hear is how it’s experienced by the subject, how it becomes existentialism
and a final remark: Ni is scary shit, isn’t it? 🙂 I mean, should we be afraid of it? 😉
Yes, Ni is probaly the most fascinating function of the eight. It can be quite scary, yes. It can take one to the absymal depths of hell or the fragged heights of heaven. Quite a powerful little number, that one is.
It is existential as a reaction to Se. Where Se is the world proper, Ni is all that burns through that world to never arrive at a solid ground. It can go forever and it will never stop. It is the eternity function. Which is why it needs balancing with some external judging function, to provide some kind of closure, even if that closure seems relatively arbitrary to Ni.
Yes, Ni is harsher and negative compared to Ne. Actually, compared to most any function really. There is a great difference in vibe between Ni and Ne. Ne is happy, positive, playful, and exuberant. Ni is dour, negative, serious, and burning a hole in you like a pinpoint laser.
It is interesting that you say that Kafka was the prototypical psychoanalytical patient. Kafka had a Cancer sun (astrology) and if you notice in my article on Cancer, I say a similar thing about the sign of Cancer:
“One can picture the natives of Cancer as the eternal psychological patients lying on the couch of the psychologist, going on about all the little things that have affected them since the last time they were there. ”
So, I think that may be where what you are describing partly comes from and not necessarily because Kafka is an INTJ, though maybe that has something to do with. Never thought of INTJs in this way. But, Cancers. Absolutely.
If Scorpio is the sign of the psychologist, then Cancer is the sign of the ideal psychological patient. They love to go on and on about all the many nuanced things that have affected them. It’s also why they make great writers and artists in general.
I found it interesting that you said INTJ + ISFJ = INFJ, as my parents are INTJ and ISFJ, and I suppose I followed that equation, assuming parents affect their children’s’ personalities (which I don’t find hard to believe). What determines the “order” of the personalities in these type equations though?
Whichever parent comes first to you I guess. I’m guessing if your an ENTP (which you so obviously fucking are!), that your mom would come first because she is an ISFJ. And your dad, you probaly wouldn’t get along with as well. ENTPs and INTJs tend not to get along. So, ISFJ + INTJ = ISTJ. Yikes, your parents add up to Bob Dole!
If your dad came first and your mom came second in importance, then they would add to INFJ.
Also, I’m completely full of shit, in case you were taking that too seriously. But, no, I think there is something to it. Why not?
I like how you (correctly) guessed that the ISFJ is my mom… They’re sort of the quintessential motherly type, aren’t they?
And ah, ENTPs. Quite the charmers. I find myself inexplicably enchanted by them. Or maybe explicably, if I took the time to really analyze it. I guess they fill the gaps of what I’m not while somehow not being totally alien.
My dad and I have similar views and thoughts about the world (more similar than my mom I feel), but how we approach the world is where we disagree. He’s more logical, methodical, efficient, and doesn’t care much for others’ feelings if it impedes the truth, whereas I am more often paralyzed by a grey area of what I want and believe is the truth/right and what others want of me and believe. It’s quite a perplexing process, but a pattern in my life nonetheless. Sometimes I wish I could just turn off the whole “caring about what others think” thing, but I ultimately wouldn’t give it up completely. I think I have a lot of conflicting feelings in general, but somehow I’m able to function.
I think there’s merit to MB math. Why wouldn’t there be?
Sorry, I was getting you confused with another commenter (who is very ENTP). I know you are an INFJ. So ignore the ENTP bit in my previous comment.
So the real question, of course, is what is Yoko Ono and why was Lennon so moth-flame drawn to her?
I think Yoko Ono is an INTJ. So, that answers the question of why Lennon was so drawn to her. She is he and we are all together.
I will definitely have to write an article on these two lovers sometime. Very interesting relationship.
ha! this reminded me of my senior thesis in high school, I did one on John Lennon through the eyes of Freud. Obviously Freud is not 100% accurate but it was super fun to see how he would have been analyzed. Anyway, I took a look at exactly why he chose Ono and Freud gave me the Oedipus complex—Ono said she was like a mother figure in the Playboy interviews, and Lennon often called her “mother” as a nickname. Furthermore, she was totally unconventional and didn’t care what other people thought of her, much like Lennon’s biological mother Julia. There’s a lot more to it but that’s the nutshell lol
Yes Blake,
Please tell us a love story. John Lennon and Yoko Ono: A love story that is one of a kind.I sound like a little kid ready for a bedtime story. You could read it to us, you know. You do have a nice voice.
In all seriousness, it would be interesting to hear/read your take on it all.
Not that I wasn’t being serious about the rest, but I was being playful. Sometimes that gets lost in text.
They had to both be rationals for sure or they never would have made it as long as they did. Rationals grind feelers down and irritate sensors after a few years.
Yoko may be entj — she field marshaled John’s resources into an empire. She certainly isn’t the shy type. John was happy to expose himself while with her, at first and at last.
Both js yeah probably.
About your perceptions of an INFP….I guess you are being too stereotypical. Sorry for replying to the wrong thread but I’ve encountered a few brutally ambitious INFPs in my life. Are you saying they are mistyped??They’ve taken the test themselves. Fi can be a source of motivation. You know?
Well, obviously, it wasn’t enough of a source of motivation for you to post your comment under the appropriate article. You see how you doom yourself to obscurity? This is the kind of passive-aggressive behavior that gets INFPs taken advantage of. No one is going to listen to you if they can’t hear you and you make every effort to not even be heard in the appropriate forum and context. And it is not my job to repost your comment to its appropriate place.
If you do so and you can articulate why what I wrote is stereotypical and why that is misleading in some way, then, I might answer you in some intelligible way. Otherwise, I don’t give a fuck.
Dear Blake- I read this and a couple of your other articles with my music loving husband (ISFP) and we really enjoyed them. This is a fantastic article- very clear, well explained, insightful- and fun! My husband asks what your thoughts are on his hands down favorite band- The Grateful Dead?
Was Camus an INFJ?
Ignore this, I didn’t read the comment section. My bad!
I’m cool with John Lennon not being an INFP and all, but what’s with all this Ni bias? I can see how Fi, Ti, Ne, Si, heck even Fe and Te are just as capable of entering the realm of the existential. The difference is in the vehicles they use to get there. To say that Ni is the “par excellence” for tackling the existential demonstrates an assigned personal value on Ni as “the one true vehicle” when all other functions are just as valid, with their own different takes on how they get there.
I thought Ni was about taking a step back, seeing the bigger picture and seeing how the values we assign are relative, so where’s the benefit of the doubt? Not all INFPs are fuzzy-brained fluffs you know.
Because Ni is the existentialist function. It’s not a bias. Ni is about what is behind the manifested world. Thus, existentialism. For example, an Se type would not be an existentialist because they are an Se type. Se = things as they appear to be.
These biases or tendencies exist almost by definition. Problem is the definitions of these things is subject to mitochondrial drift.
Ni = existentialism.
Please note that by my lights INFPs have Ni id and thus are heavy in Ni in the particular manner of what I call the id function. I wrote an article on the id function that is accessible to Starling subscribers. You may easily find this article in the site map of this site.
I’d have to disagree. I’ve consistently tested as infp, strongly p at that, and all I do is question the nature of reality.
Disagreement noted. But, keep in mind, I don’t know who you are and so that can’t be a very fruitful argument.
Also, infp’s are often considered ass holes by those who don’t understand them. I don’t agree Lennon was an ass hole, yet this premise is presumed to be accepted in your argument.
Also, infp’s are often considered ass holes by those who don’t understand them.
OK, name me some people that are famous INFPs that are assholes.
I don’t agree Lennon was an ass hole, yet this premise is presumed to be accepted in your argument.
OK, so you don’t agree Lennon was an asshole. You don’t have to accept it, however, it is well-documented that Lennon was what could be considered an asshole if you look beneath his peace and love image. Actually, it’s even admitted by Lennon himself in various places.
Also, please note that I no longer consider Lennon an INTJ, but an INFJ, albeit, a very INTJish INFJ. INFP is out of the question for me based on the way I understand and interpret INFP, which is documented throughout this site.
Hey Damon, I have a weird reason why I think John Lennon is inj possibly infj…what do you think?
It isn’t the asshole thing…it’s a visceral thing on his face. You know when someone gets a cut and they make a sound ssss…because it hurts. That visceral kind of undertone. I think he has it. I find that injs have more visceral reactions on their faces, often especially infjs. Intjs sometimes look slightly more I dunno ascetic.
Lunar,
That’s interesting. So we shouldn’t play poker with you, huh? If we don’t want to lose, that is. LOL
@Damon
Hey. Fellow infp here. Hey, I regularly derail about reality. It is sort of my secret. Outside stellarmaze, it is under wraps and hidden from view. Not even my family knows about it. I just came back from an event. I wanted to throw up from a sense that it is not real. None of it made any sense to me. And that was a mild reality problem. When it hits stronger that is when it is a very secret thing….I try to avoid such a state.
John Lennon liked monopoly I read in various places. Was really into it.
Not sure why that is surprising to me…..
So just curious, do any of you enjoy monopoly?
I enjoy Scrabble..
Monopoly is fun, but I can’t strategize for nuts..
Of course, it doesn’t have to be a type thing, but can imagine ENTJs getting a kick out of it 😛
I think I used to.
Regarding games, though, what do you think about the relative ability of types to keep “a poker face?” I don’t play poker, but wonder if I could pull off the face without “tells.” I think I could, but that may be hubris on my part. Who would be best at it? Who would be worst? John Lennon looks to me like someone who could pull this off, but I have my doubts about Paul. George would be a master at it, I imagine. Ringo, would show his hand. 🙂
@Rita
fun question:)
Hmmm. Guess to be good at poker you have to hide your sheer delight if something good happens.
I always picture intj for poker face. Man have you seen intj tell some jokes. Deadpan wowzees. But I don’t know if that translates to being good at poker.
@Rita
Actually istp or entp?
Seems like it helps to have ease of Ti. Helps to not get stressed much. Enjoy a thrill….
Yeah, that is probably so. I can see an ENTP giving no tells or expressing misleading tells. I think perhaps I could do that too. Since I don’t have experience with this though, I’m not sure.
@Rita
Would you start wondering what is the higher purpose of mastering poker? Just wondering.
Blake wrote somewhere that infjs are pretty good at throwing others off their scent. So infjs could be good I bet.
This is an interesting site and the guy has interesting videos.
http://www.navarropoker.com
Lunar,
No, poker was just a vehicle to discuss how much we reveal to others. I have no real interest in engaging in poker, but in the skills it takes that translate to the mind games we all must play in life. Do we have masks, if so what kind of masks, are they conscious, and what do they convey to others? These are the questions I’m really asking if I were to define it.
It is an interesting video but breaking down the sum of parts in a human being like that is not my forte. It is the overall impression that is left. How it gets there I cannot always tell, although I’m sure those unique pieces are there, but not broken down as consciously as much as this man does. I will look at it more later. It is interesting.
I play cards every week; Texas Holdem, Shit Head(which we have developed over time)
There’s more than one reason they gang up on me
I cream them all, Muwahaha
well mostly
The owner of Mona gallery made his fortune from gambling and put all 200 million of it into the place, plus a fair more he borrowed from his gambling partner
https://mona.net.au/museum/exhibitions/on-the-origin-of-art/david-walsh
I know a person who can win thousands in hours in any form of gambling and, in my juvenile typing ability, seems to be entp
I couldn’t have said it better myself, wish I knew you :’)
This response is a couple years late, but I’m compelled to comment after recently learning more about Lennon’s past.
Specifically his relentless anger and cynicism in contrast to his constant search for emotional peace. His musical apptitide and ability to walk away from anything, including long standing relationships. The depth of his feelings and his struggle to make sense of them. His utter lack of respect for the “establishment” and “authority”. His intellectualism…
I found this post by searching for his MIBT designation. For the most part, I was disappointed in what I found. Until I read this post…
John Lennon was/is a classic (unhealthy) INTJ in my not so humble opinion. (That poor, tortured man. Wouldn’t wish INTJ status on my worst enemy, or maybe I would…) The analysis in this post was well thought out and made complete sense to me. Thank you.
John could not be INTJ. Independent ? No! He had to have someone to depend on , whether his QuArrymen band mates or Brian or Paul and ultimately Yoko who most definitely is the independent mastermind INTJ. John was so F and so P That whatever bold statement he made one day could flip flop the next. He couldn’t even keep track of it ! His feelings RULED him. That’s why it was so easy for mastermind Yoko to reel him in. I’m saying John was XNFP.
Totally agree about Paul, and he’s been hard for me to nail down but you explained the imaginative part so well. Ringo could be ESFP rather than ESFJ.
George was not quiet! He was blunt and opinionated and very quirky. He was a PUNK from the time he was invited to join the group and held his own quite well with the two superegos. He had many more friends than John or Paul after the group broke up. Have you watched the Scorsese film?) I love the way you talk about John being the essence of the Beatles because I completely believe that too. Thanks for a fantastic analysis !
Lennon is an INFJ. I’ve changed my mind since this article came out.
Hi Blake, please do elaborate. What aspects of Lennon’s personality do you now see that changed your mind and brought you to this recent INFJ conclusion?
I realized that my continuum for INTJs was off. I classified a bunch of people that I now consider INFJ or enneatype 3 ENFJ as INTJs. Basically, I realized that most great artists that have stood the test of time (be they writers, composers, painters etc.) are either INFJ or ENFJ (this includes enneatype 8 ENFJ too, however I haven’t made the mistake of misclassifying people of their type as INTJ).
To answer your question more specifically, it was the Aquarian features of Lennon’s personality that were leading me to classify him as an INTJ. However, what I’ve learned is that INFJs often have those traits very strongly too (Ti traits).
The basic rule is this: If a person has achieved exceptional distinction in the arts, they aren’t an INTJ. It takes Fe for that. As a rule. And INTJ is stunted in Fe, as a general rule.
I suppose we could say Lennon was an outlier INTJ, but really, I just think it’s a better policy to say he was an INFJ.
I mean, Lennon had “aspects of his personality” that one could say were INTJ, sure. But, over time I’ve come to base my typings, not on what the “aspects of a person’s personality” are (which can be very subjective), but, what they are good at, and in the case of people of exceptional distinction in a particular field (in this case, music), I’ve noticed that many of the greatest musicians that have ever lived tend to be INFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, and ISFP.
INTJ is not even on the map in this regard.
So, for me to say Lennon is an INTJ doesn’t make sense. In the regard of the “aspects of his personality”, sure, I can see INTJ. Lennon could be very cold and biting. He didn’t exhibit much feeling in most interviews you see of him. This is why I said in the article I was seeing a Te projection (over an Fe projection). You’d expect Fe aux. to be warm and inviting, full of feeling etc.
However, Lennon in his musical expression was like some gift sent from the gods. And I think this is common for some INFJs who are more on the Aquarian side. In their life they are cold and detached, but in their art they are like god’s gift to a suffering and impoverished humanity.
I don’t think INTJ fits on this continuum of the artistic type. I think they often have an interest in art, but not the facility (Fe).
Fe is something an INFJ can turn on or off. It’s often used in their artistic expression and nowhere else.
Let me put it this way, no INTJ could have written Strawberry Fields. And that’s just one example from Lennon’s extensive oeuvre.
So, that is the way I have come to type. What can a person do or not do? And particularly, what can they do exceptionally well? I know INTJs can “do” art, but can they be great at it? Also, the phrase “aspects of personality” is very open to interpretation as many people will see different things in the same person. I see this problem all the time in MBTI discussions. One person will see this “aspect” of a person’s personality and another will see a whole different “aspect of their personality”.
INFJs tend to have a lot of facets and aspects to their personality, which is one of the reasons they can be great artists. That’s what great artists generally do, reveal many different aspects of the human condition. Need Ni for this, but perhaps, more importantly, Fe.
Which is why ISFJ and ISFP tend to be more minor artists. The former lacks Ni and the latter lacks Fe (and Ni, to some extent). As you can see, the feeling function in toto is important for great artists.
So, that’s why 😉
So you still think Judy Davis is an INTJ then? Is she one of the exceptions?
“”aspects of a person’s personality” are (which can be very subjective)”
you can really see that in the last type challenge. everyone seeing something different. it’s even crazier for subtype than type.
I agree! I’ve thought the same. Maybe people were seeing a similar set of aspects but assigned them differently, mixing up the rising vs. moon subtypes or even the sun type itself. Now that I more or less get what is the “sun subtype,” I wanna know what makes this aspect a moon subtype and what makes that a rising. For example JBP was ISFJ rising but his astrology gave a strong xNTJ impression. And Blake assigned him as a INFJ sun, ISFJ rising, ENTJ moon.
Regarding ENTJ Moon for JBP, here’s what Blake said after proofreading the List: “Yeah, I’m not as sure about that as the ISFJ rising. I don’t feel very committed to it. So, leave it out for now.”
lol. my head really hurts. i can see the Jen Connelly breezy open just beautiful open face thing in Portman. lol. but it’s not the only thing i see….in Portman i see many things…or think i do at least haha.
what is “sun subtype,”?
i’ve been wondering if rising subtype is supposed to be the INSTANT first impression. because for infjfrontrowseat i did instantly see how she’s talking into the camera, smiling, tilting her head this way, leaning that way, that is a very EXFP thing to do. but that quickly was replaced by a more isfj comfy vibe impression, then morphed into other impressions haha
as for Portman, oh my god….i’ve had so many impressions. in her interview where letterman says “have you noticed how people who look alike behave alike” and she’s like “NO”, i was like for real? you can’t see one aspect of how what he says could be true? it seems so obviously SOMEWHAT true. and she kind of jokes about it, but it seemed a bit weak on intuition for me, i seriously for a moment doubted she was even intuitive………but then it’s not like being intuitive means you’re always gonna be open minded about everything so lol again, the analysis schmanalysis.
sun type, rising type, then soon to be pluto falling type, black hole rising impression. lol. just ouch.
Thanks for the response, Blake. It is a very compelling theory I must ponder. I have always been a big Lennon fan. I am also an INFJ, Enneagram 8w7 musical artist, so I am attempting to process this as objectively as possible… if that’s possible. I’m glad to see you are open to correction; it demonstrates strength and humility, a willingness to be open to further analysis, instead of a need to always be right like so many in the MBTI community stubbornly are… especially YouTube content creators claiming to be my type when they clearly are not. Worse, they go a step further and spread disinformation for thousand to consume.
Anyway, thanks again for the timely response. 🙂
yes yes and yes. Totally agree with everything said. I don’t understand why people label Lennon as an F because he really wasn’t in touch with his own feelings, let alone other people’s. Paul is a J for sure. Are you kidding? Doing Maxwell’s Silver Hammer 150 times or so to get it perfectly can only take a J.
Haha I’m an INTJ as well so I suppose I’m biased in backing this theory of Lennon as one. He’s my favorite.
Both your main arguments are wrong.
1. “Lennon is not an INFP because INFPs are nice people, some of the nicest around.”
It all comes down to healthy and unhealthy, of course an very unhealthy INFP can be an asshole. Lennon was very unhealthy, that is why it is so hard to type him.
INFP like every other personality type can be mean and cruel. Here is an description of the mean INFP:
“Destructive INFPs are self-absorbed, self-righteous, and waver between being passive and extremely judgmental. They enjoy living in their fantasies, but care little for the practical realities of daily life. They may neglect their loved ones and family members and instead prefer to live in a world of their own making, in essence abandoning everyone who holds them dear. They may consider themselves more morally superior or “righteous” than others, married to their idealism to such an extent that any and everyone in the real world seems flawed and disappointing. They may retreat from the world and silently judge everyone they see. Over time, they may become increasingly harsh and condemning of people in their lives. They may become so obsessed with their own emotions and fantasies that they shun or berate anyone who tries to find a way into their hearts.”
2. “There is no way an INFP would question the basic grounds of reality to the extent that Lennon did. Ni is the only thing that does this.”
Can’t speak for any other than my self, but I am an INFP, and that is the complete opposite of what I’ve experienced, in my head. That is what I do the most, there’s not much more than can be called ” in my nature”, than that, in fact. So I just assume many INFPs do the same, if not all.
At least, Lennon is an XNFX. That is a fact.
Can’t speak for any other than my self, but I am an INFP
Jesus
and that is the complete opposite of what I’ve experienced, in my head. That is what I do the most, there’s not much more than can be called ” in my nature”, than that, in fact.
Fucking
So I just assume many INFPs do the same, if not all.
Christ
At least, Lennon is an XNFX. That is a fact.
Almighty
This article in astro.com describes George as intensely private. I always assumed this was a Ni-dom thing b/c the only two types I’ve experienced as desiring this level of privacy are INTJ and INFJ. Is this accurate? Or are there other types/dominant functions that crave privacy the way INFJ/INTJ do?
https://www.astro.com/astrology/aa_article190502_e.htm
How is John empathetic?? I don’t get it
Why don’t you think John was empathetic? Let’s start there.
John didn’t really act like he was careful or considerate of other people’s feelings. He would say whatever he wanted even if it would provoke people to take offense. I did agree with you when you first said he was an INTJ ( i say this because i strongly relate to being an INTJ) because he spoke his mind unlike most others people in the 60s. That shows that other people’s feelings were not his first priority and he would rather say what he truly believed in rather than fit his opinion to match everyone else’s.
I’m also curious as to what made you decide that he was an INFJ?
John didn’t really act like he was careful or considerate of other people’s feelings.
Agree.
He would say whatever he wanted even if it would provoke people to take offense.
Yes.
I did agree with you when you first said he was an INTJ ( i say this because i strongly relate to being an INTJ) because he spoke his mind unlike most others people in the 60s.
Problem is a lot of INFJs are labelled as INTJs.
That shows that other people’s feelings were not his first priority and he would rather say what he truly believed in rather than fit his opinion to match everyone else’s.
Other people’s feelings are not an INFJ’s first priority. Their first priority is Ni.
So all this goes to show why I don’t think Lennon was an INFP, who would be incapable of offending and provoking people. But, as I’ve come over the years to believe, this doesn’t make him an INTJ either.
All the things you mentioned in regards to Lennon, are more INFJ propensities than INTJ. That’s what I’ve come to realize in the time since I wrote this article.
I’m also curious as to what made you decide that he was an INFJ?
Because no INTJ could write a song like Strawberry Fields. I mean, c’mon now!
Nope, Lennon was your typical INFJ narcissistic empathic monstrously wounded heaven and hell asshole angel. Well, not typical because Lennon was obviously exceptional (a genius), but typical INFJ genius.
Also, see my response on this same article to a similar query regarding why I think Lennon is an INFJ here
if you get a good look at John Lennon, he is ENFP. If you check watch interviews etc, it all checks. Paul is more a problem because he acts like a ISFP (he can be confident, almost arrogant) but he has the Fe , the way he smiles etc. So he looks like ISFJ. Also he is complicated because he is left handed (i’m left handed). It jumps up your perceptual functions. If you want to be interesting on Paul, he is a mix of both ISFP and ISFJ…the only way is if he is INFJ, left handed too hahahaha. Bye. I know …
if you get a good look at John Lennon, he is ENFP. If you check watch interviews etc, it all checks.
OK, I’m convinced! Thanks for all that overwhelming evidence you presented there!
Paul is more a problem because he acts like a ISFP (he can be confident, almost arrogant)
Don’t see this at all (Paul acting like ISFP). Also, ISFP is not typically arrogant, quite the opposite actually. George Harrison’s retiring behavior is more typical of ISFP.
Also he is complicated because he is left handed
Nah.
(i’m left handed)
Well, case closed then.
…see John as ENFP
then you see Strawberry Fields as ENFP on LSD 🙂
(off topic) yesterday I found a bizarre french mbti site. http://dm.sakinorva.net/view?id=2468
those guys who know about socionomics do the ‘movie reviewer’ thing where they realize that the categories are always biased so a socionomics ABCD is a meyers briggs WXYZ. They did same for you. They say your INFJs are mbti INFPs . … At least they care. Bye
on Paul, i was trying to argue away from IFSJ as too arrogant , but the ISFP direction doesn’t work because he has obvious Fe. I still like the story Paul as INFJ or ENFJ.
The overall story John ENFP Paul INFJ is a pretty story. It’s got symmetry.
i had the idea that you could check …the plausibility easy. That’s how beta quadra works. Guesses can be checked quickly.
I don’t buy Lennon being an INFJ. Aren’t they supposed to align their social behavior to make everyone confortable even if they feel bad ideep down inside?
No.